!!!DOJ WARNING!!! DOJ WARNING!!!

[Scratch705]

Not buying it. Same kind of clowns hysterically stating You Tube was shutting down all gun related content a couple months ago. Guess what kids, nothing changed, not on my end at any rate.

well to be honest to the youtube shutting down gun content, they did remove a few channels but then were restored a few days later.

so that youtube thing had some partial truths to it.

[BBot12]

[kmas]

Been & Gone

Already been to our area.
(did not break down the doors, fortunately)

[Free_Citizen_Shop]

Sounds like The Daily Shooter got a little carried away....I posted a comment response to his video.

You can tell he's quite flustered throughout the video. Maybe he read the OP's post and felt he needed to make his subscribers aware before actually validating the information.

Seems like he is the OP of the thread, right?

[Huntsprig]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00020O572...fe_4_x01_-srt-

.

[Ross]

Here you go, a good synopsis of the OP's concern:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fn36l_z3WY

[gary.davis.56808]

I have watched a couple of his other videos. He says he's in LA countySent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

[Hostile_SS]

i would hope the Daily shooter would be more sure of his source prior to crying wolf. i would think by now, had this been true, you tube (ok.. maybe not you tube) but there would be videos of them trying to get in.

[bootstrap]

Here's the daily shooter's vid:

[Kindom55]

https://youtu.be/J---aiyznGQ

Lol

[Mayor McRifle]

I work at a California FFL and today one of our local high-ranking deputies let us know that the doj has set up a team for the next 10 months in our area to conduct warrantless door-to-door compliance checks for assault style rifles. According to a contact into sheriff's dept, they have already filed 15 claims against people and one of them happens to also be a sheriff's deputy as well.

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

[Discogodfather]

They are on their Instagram.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Where? I looked and can't find a damn thing.

[Free_Citizen_Shop]

Where? I looked and can't find a damn thing.

they took it down last night

[RickD427]

King v Kentucky Supreme Court, a decision concerning the exigent circumstance justification for the warrentless search of a home when an officer has probable cause to believe that evidence is being destroyed; the argument being that it is reasonable to search the house without a warrant as that evidence will be destroyed in the time it takes to get the warrant. How does that or any other exigent circumstance apply to the search of homes as here being discused?

Chewy,

There's a ton of case law involved here, but the sum of it does not support LEOs entering the location to conduct a search on the theory that evidence was being destroyed. The courts have stated a strong preference for officers to take only those actions needed to immediately secure the scene, and then secure a search warrant before proceeding further. Please refer to Mincey v Arizona. (I used Mincey as source material in a couple of classes that I taught in the academy. I had the privilege of speaking with the DDA that tried the Mincey case. I had only a couple of brief questions about background stuff so that I could better present the case and I got a four hour rundown of the three trials).

The courts have also been loathe to support what has been termed "Police Created Exigency." Kentucky v King does a good job of summarizing this.

The idea that LEO's would leave a location unsupervised while getting a search warrant, and then serving that warrant (only to discover that the object of the search disappeared during their absence) is something right out of the movies. We don't work like that in real life.

In actual practice, if the situation was one of King's examples where the officer's conduct created the exigency, and this was foreseeable. I would expect a professional LEO to "cut bait" and end the contact.

If the situation were one where the "officer created exigency" was not foreseeable, then I would expect officers to make a protective sweep of the location for persons, and then secure it pending a warrant. Please refer to Maryland v Buie and Mincey v Arizona.

[Discogodfather]

they took it down last night

What did it say?